Tek Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Satyen Vaidya, J

Petitioner is an accused in case registered vide FIR No. 267 of 2021, dated 23.12.2021, at Police Station, Sadar Mandi, H.P. under Section 20 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Actâ€​). Petitioner is in custody since 24.12.2021.

Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in the above noted case, on the grounds that the petitioner has no

direct link with the present offence. Petitioner belongs to a respectable family and his implication is false in the case. The investigation is already

complete. Nothing further is to be recovered from the petitioner. He has undertaken not to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Petitioner will abide

by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against him.

In response, the status report has been filed. It is stated that on 23.12.2021 the police party apprehended the petitioner at about 9.40 p.m. at Bhiuli

Chowk Mandi, who was carrying a carry bag in his right hand. On suspicion, a search was conducted and 144 grams. of Charas was recovered from

the carry bag carried by petitioner. Petitioner was arrested and is in custody till date. The investigation has been completed and the challan is likely to

be filed in the Court shortly.

At the time of hearing, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that another case vide FIR No. 209/2019 dated 5.8.2019 was registered

against petitioner at Police Station, Mandi, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, in which also he was carrying intermediate quantity of Charas and

petitioner was also an accused in another case vide FIR No.187/2009, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 146 and 149 IPC.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the status report

and police file.

The quantity of Charas recovered from the petitioner is less than commercial quantity and hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not

be applicable. Petitioner is in custody since 24.12.2021.

Petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Sarandha, P.O. Pandoh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. The allegations against petitioner are yet to

be proved. The pre-trial incarceration cannot be allowed as a matter of rule. Mere fact that petitioner is an accused in earlier case under the same

Act involving intermediate quantity of Charas, can also not be a ground to deny the bail to the petitioner especially when the allegations in the said

case are yet to be proved against him. The other case registered vide FIR No. 187/2009, in which petitioner was involved is stated to have been

decided and the petitioner stands acquitted in the said case.

It is not the case of the respondent that in case of release of petitioner on bail, the trial shall be adversely effected in any manner. It has also not

been shown that the petitioner has potential to win-over or influence the prosecution witnesses. That being so, no fruitful purpose shall be served by

keeping the petitioner in custody for indefinite period till the conclusion of trial, which is likely to take some time.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case registered

vide FIR No. No. 267 of 2021, dated 23.12.2021, at Police Station, Sadar, Mandi, H.P. under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, on his furnishing personal

bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi or any other Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Mandi. This order is, however, subject to following conditions and it is clarified that in case of breach of any of the conditions,

the respondent shall be at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner:

i) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity and in the event of breach of this condition being made by petitioner, the bail granted to

the petitioner in this case, shall automatically be cancelled.

ii) That the petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without express leave of Trial Court during the Trial.

iii). That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and

shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

iv) That the petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion.

Any observation made in this order shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the

matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.